View Full Version : 1st goal v Falkirk now an o.g.
Ritchie
01-12-2009, 07:33 AM
has officially been taken away from deek.
now a mclean own goal.
sorry if its been posted on here already.
did anyone cash in a 1st goalscorer or scorecast cause all the sunday paper credited deek with the goal???
Calvin
01-12-2009, 07:51 AM
has officially been taken away from deek.
now a mclean own goal.
sorry if its been posted on here already.
did anyone cash in a 1st goalscorer or scorecast cause all the sunday paper credited deek with the goal???
Own goals don't count so fortunately it was irrelevant as he scored the second.
Toaods
01-12-2009, 07:55 AM
Excellent news - keeps him hungry for his 20 goals target.
Ritchie
01-12-2009, 07:59 AM
Own goals don't count so fortunately it was irrelevant as he scored the second.
well you learn something new everyday.
Craig_in_Prague
01-12-2009, 09:08 AM
what if u had Deek 1st goal and Hibs to win 2-0?
screwed?
or just money back?
Calvin
01-12-2009, 09:19 AM
what if u had Deek 1st goal and Hibs to win 2-0?
screwed?
or just money back?
No, as far as I know, that bet would pay out as although the first goal scorer doesn't count, the goal does.
Hibs7
01-12-2009, 09:57 AM
Deeks to score first and 2-0 Hibs, paid out on Saturday £115 :greengrin :agree:
Hibs7
01-12-2009, 09:59 AM
has officially been taken away from deek.
now a mclean own goal.
sorry if its been posted on here already.
did anyone cash in a 1st goalscorer or scorecast cause all the sunday paper credited deek with the goal???
That is wrong, as it was a shot deflected should go to the attacking player who hit the ball, different if the guy had poked his foot out and punted it into his own net, just the Scottish west coast mafia ensuring Boyd or McDonald don't get challenged for top scorer. :grr: :grr: :grr:
Ritchie
01-12-2009, 10:05 AM
That is wrong, as it was a shot deflected should go to the attacking player who hit the ball, different if the guy had poked his foot out and punted it into his own net, just the Scottish west coast mafia ensuring Boyd or McDonald don't get challenged for top scorer. :grr: :grr: :grr:
i disagree.
it is classed an own goal if the shot isn't goal bound but deflected in.
deeks shot was heading for the corner flag so if it wasnt for mclean it wouldnt have been a goal.
definately should go down as an OG IMO.
aljo7-0
01-12-2009, 10:13 AM
It's down to the referee's report apparently. So even after the game has finnished Somers manages to make a decision against Hibs. I think it probably was going wide before it hit the defender so technically he is correct stating it as an own goal IMHO
i disagree.
it is classed an own goal if the shot isn't goal bound but deflected in.
deeks shot was heading for the corner flag so if it wasnt for mclean it wouldnt have been a goal.
definately should go down as an OG IMO.
You're right it was a definite og, but I don't think you're right about it not being a goal if Mclean hadn't touched it. Stokes was right behind Mclean ready for a tap in. :wink:
the lurker
01-12-2009, 10:26 AM
what if u had Deek 1st goal and Hibs to win 2-0?
screwed?
or just money back?
Or You just collect a load of dosh like I did:greengrin
Alec
the lurker
01-12-2009, 10:32 AM
Deeks to score first and 2-0 Hibs, paid out on Saturday £115 :greengrin :agree:
Likewise:wink:
Ritchie
01-12-2009, 10:39 AM
You're right it was a definite og, but I don't think you're right about it not being a goal if Mclean hadn't touched it. Stokes was right behind Mclean ready for a tap in. :wink:
taking into account stokes current form.... would you put your house on it??? :devil:
LancashireHibby
01-12-2009, 10:40 AM
That is wrong, as it was a shot deflected should go to the attacking player who hit the ball, different if the guy had poked his foot out and punted it into his own net, just the Scottish west coast mafia ensuring Boyd or McDonald don't get challenged for top scorer. :grr: :grr: :grr:
But there was no way it would have gone in had it not been for McLean's intervention.
stuart62
01-12-2009, 10:48 AM
how was scott mcdonalds goal given to him rather than an own goal?
to me they were both the same kind of shot, i.e. going wide but deflected in :confused:
Hibs7
01-12-2009, 11:02 AM
i disagree.
it is classed an own goal if the shot isn't goal bound but deflected in.
deeks shot was heading for the corner flag so if it wasnt for mclean it wouldnt have been a goal.
definately should go down as an OG IMO.
Nah Deeks had a spin on it, it would have gone in off the post after it bent. :wink:
Toaods
01-12-2009, 11:11 AM
Nah Deeks had a spin on it, it would have gone in off the post after it bent. :wink:
Meantime over at the Toaods videoprinter for some updates...
West Coast Mafia 1 Deek O
Ladbrokes 0 Punters 300
:greengrin
Hibs7
01-12-2009, 11:14 AM
Meantime over at the Toaods videoprinter for some updates...
West Coast Mafia 1 Deek O
Ladbrokes 0 Punters 300
:greengrin
Yep it was a good day all round for the punters.:top marks
jazthehibby
01-12-2009, 02:33 PM
has officially been taken away from deek.
now a mclean own goal.
sorry if its been posted on here already.
did anyone cash in a 1st goalscorer or scorecast cause all the sunday paper credited deek with the goal???
That is a good call as my daughter had own goal in the sweep on saturday, Brooster & Scoopyboy please take not or Nicole will sort u oot on sat :faf:
has officially been taken away from deek.
now a mclean own goal.
sorry if its been posted on here already.
did anyone cash in a 1st goalscorer or scorecast cause all the sunday paper credited deek with the goal???
SPL website still crediting Deeks with both goals:confused:
MWHIBBIES
01-12-2009, 02:36 PM
was going wide so is tecnicaly on o.g. anyone know if macherano got the goal or yobo was same kinda thing
Ritchie
01-12-2009, 02:39 PM
SPL website still crediting Deeks with both goals:confused:
according to all this mornings papers the SPL have taken it away from deek as the referee noted it down as an own goal and the referee's decision is final.
SPL are gash at everything, so im not surprised their website isn't accurate!
HUTCHYHIBBY
01-12-2009, 03:03 PM
was going wide so is tecnicaly on o.g. anyone know if macherano got the goal or yobo was same kinda thing
The BBC website gave it to Yobo, but, if I remember rightly the bookies go by whatever the majority of The Press Association decide the morning after the game, so, even if it gets changed at a later date they go by the inital decision made by said majority. Having said that they normally still pay out on the day of the game though!
The BBC website gave it to Yobo, but, if I remember rightly the bookies go by whatever the majority of The Press Association decide the morning after the game, so, even if it gets changed at a later date they go by the inital decision made by said majority. Having said that they normally still pay out on the day of the game though!
The bookies definitely go with the Press Release directly after the game and if this changes after then the original decision is still valid. Press gave it to Deek therefore if he hadn't have scored the 2nd they would still pay out.
I Love Lamp
01-12-2009, 07:20 PM
It's like when a really good low cross is played across the six yard box and a defender hits it in. Admittedly, Deeks was aiming for the goal which distinguishes it slightly but the same principle still applies. A great low ball may be the main reason for the goal being scored (much like Deek's technique was) but no-one would argue the guy crossing it in was the goalscorer.
CorrieHibs
02-12-2009, 09:22 AM
Hibs striker Derek Riordan is angry after the SPL gave the first goal against Falkirk on Saturday as a Brian McLean own goal after a big deflection. Riordan wants his goal back and points out that Celtic's Scott MacDonald was awarded a deflected strike at the weekend.
Shocking did take a deflection but i'm sure Brian McLean doesn't want it. Give it to Deek he got his goal taken off him that he scored against Brechin in the cup as well.
lucky
02-12-2009, 09:37 AM
totally agree if Deeks goal is an own goal so was McDonald. Again the SPL favouring the the smellies
jodjam
02-12-2009, 09:38 AM
i'm guessing someone on the committee has a few bob on skippy topping the scoring charts.
lyonhibs
02-12-2009, 09:42 AM
Was McDonald's going on target before it took a deflection, because Deeks' effort was certainly going wide.
Hank Schrader
02-12-2009, 09:43 AM
Was McDonalds shot heading towards the target before it deflected in?
Hank Schrader
02-12-2009, 09:44 AM
Was McDonald's going on target before it took a deflection, because Deeks' effort was certainly going wide.
As far as I am aware any shot deflected in when initially not being on target is deemed an own goal.
Definately an own goal. Same situation in the Premiership with Mascherano's (sp) 'goal' was awarded as Yobo own goal. If the shot is going off target its an own goal (and quite rightly IMO)
hibbie02
02-12-2009, 09:51 AM
As far as I am aware any shot deflected in when initially not being on target is deemed an own goal.
Define "Initially"........... :greengrin
scoopyboy
02-12-2009, 09:59 AM
That is a good call as my daughter had own goal in the sweep on saturday, Brooster & Scoopyboy please take not or Nicole will sort u oot on sat :faf:
Rest easy James. SPL website has been updated to show the first goal as an og.
Steve20
02-12-2009, 10:10 AM
I don't see the fuss. Deeks shot was not going in. It's an own goal without a doubt.
Dashing Bob S
02-12-2009, 10:14 AM
I don't see the fuss. Deeks shot was not going in. It's an own goal without a doubt.
No fuss at all. You're spot on.
But so was McDonald's.
Thus fuss.
I don't think Deeks is doing himself any favours here. First he's heard grumbling about his 15 minutes for Scotland and now he's banging on about the SPL/SFA awarding two own goals rather than to him.
Fact is both were clearly own goals. As long as he keeps his mouth shut and focuses on his own performance for Hibs the Scotlaqnd selection should take care of itself. Did anyone else notice that he actually tackled someone on Saturday without committing a foul :dizzy:
Deeks ma boy - Moaning gets you nowhere and just gets other peoples backs up.
Great talent but a torn faced git :greengrin
Hank Schrader
02-12-2009, 10:28 AM
No fuss at all. You're spot on.
But so was McDonald's.
Thus fuss.
Ridiculous decision if that is the case :rolleyes:
Define "Initially"........... :greengrin
I would but initially I cannae be ersed :greengrin
Phil MaGlass
02-12-2009, 10:36 AM
2-0 m,well
El Gubbz
02-12-2009, 10:36 AM
Was Liam Miller awarded the deflected goal against Aberdeen? I'm sure that took a bigger deflection and would have been well covered by the keeper had the shot not deflected
hibbie02
02-12-2009, 10:39 AM
Aye and who got credited when that Beach Ball scored against Liverpool? I dinnae see "Beach Ball" credited in the scoring lists!!! It's a conspiracy I tell you!!!
Was Liam Miller awarded the deflected goal against Aberdeen? I'm sure that took a bigger deflection and would have been well covered by the keeper had the shot not deflected
It doesn't matter as Miller's shot was going on target - Deeks' wasn't
bigstu
02-12-2009, 10:40 AM
dam! I've got money on Deeks to be top spl scorer at the end of the season!!
Austinho
02-12-2009, 10:43 AM
Was McDonalds shot heading towards the target before it deflected in?It would have been closer to a throw in than a goal.
totally agree if Deeks goal is an own goal so was McDonald. Again the SPL favouring the the smellies
Was McDonald's going on target before it took a deflection, because Deeks' effort was certainly going wide.
Was McDonalds shot heading towards the target before it deflected in?
No fuss at all. You're spot on.
But so was McDonald's.
Thus fuss.
McDonald's shot was going in at the far post and was deflected by the Saints defender towards the middle of the goal.
No conspiracy here. Move along now. :wink:
Austinho
02-12-2009, 04:29 PM
McDonald's shot was going in at the far post and was deflected by the Saints defender towards the middle of the goal.
No conspiracy here. Move along now. :wink:Click here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8385345.stm). It was going well wide.
Click here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8385345.stm). It was going well wide.
Yeah, seen that. Watched it several times.
The official view is that there was bend on that ball that would have brought it in at the far post anyway.
:cool2:
silverhibee
03-12-2009, 12:39 PM
McDonalds shot was going wide, not as wide as Deeks, but it was going past the post.
number 27
03-12-2009, 01:30 PM
Click here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8385345.stm). It was going well wide.
It really was :agree:
It's not the most important issue but that's a pretty glaring inconsistency.
basehibby
03-12-2009, 01:37 PM
McDonalds shot was going wide, not as wide as Deeks, but it was going past the post.
Yeah - that had me scratching my head watching the highlights - particularly with regard to the "analysis".
Both Dodds and wossname the presenter were agreed that Deeks' effort was definately an OG, yet when it came to McDonald's it was "well I think we can give him that one...". No consistency from the so called "experts" and the same from the SPL. Fuds! :grr:
Booked4Being-Ugly
03-12-2009, 02:32 PM
Deeks to score first and 2-0 Hibs, paid out on Saturday £115 :greengrin :agree: You've changed your tune, remember this??? :wink::greengrin
Walked back with Gus McPherson from the game and he said it is difficult when you lose your best players, I said Deeks isn't as good as he thinks he is and he agreed but said who is going to tell him then laughed, I don't think he saw a lot to worry him for the first game of the season but I hope he is proved wrong.
.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.